The impact of Attentional Scope on Product Choice Locations

(1)

The impact of Attentional

Scope on Product Choice

Locations

How does the Assortment Structure Influence this

Relationship

01/07/2016 Hannah-Stella Kirchhoff 1

Agenda

Introduction – Assortments

Assortment Structure, Position Effects & Attentional Scope

Method

(2)

Introduction – Assortments

Benefits

• Offering of alternatives, facilitating the

consumer’s fulfilment of various

objectives (Kwak et al., 2015)

• Important factors influencing retailer

choice

(Levy & Weitz, 2008; Hoch et

al., 1999)

• Attraction of potential customers

(Hadar & Sood, 2014; Iyengar &

Lepper, 2000)

• Providing information about the items

within the assortment

(Bellenger &

Korgaonkar, 1980)

Drawbacks

• Decreased purchase intentions

(Hadar &

Sood, 2014)

• Increased regret and dissatisfaction

(Diehl

& Poynor, 2010, Mogilner et al., 2008)

• Ultimately no choice at all

(Iyengar &

Lepper, 2009; Huffman & Kahn, 1998)

Assortment Structure & Position effects

Edge Aversion

• Items chosen from evidently equivalent

assortment: most likely located in the centre

(Bar-Hillel, 2015)

• greater reachability in a perceptual-motor task,

higher representativeness in mental choice tasks

(Bar-Hillel, 2015)

Edge Preference

• if the assortment requires processing

(Bar-Hillel,

2015; Dayan & Bar-Hillel, 2011)

H

YPOTHESIS

1

(3)

Attentional Scope

Trigger Goal Pursuit

• Monetary incentive delay task

(cf. Cooper et al., 2009; Knutson

& Greer, 2008; Knutson &

Wimmer, 2007; Knutson et al.,

2000; IN: Gable &

Harmon-Jones, 2011, p.1359)

Goal Pursuit

• Broad attention span not

beneficial for reaching desired

goal

(Gable & Harmon-Jones,

2011)

• Excluded unwanted stimuli

narrow attentional scope

(Gable

& Harmon-Jones, 2011)

Goal Pursuit

Terminated

• After goal achievement: reversed

again (from narrow to broad)

(Gable & Harmon-Jones, 2011)

Hypotheses

H

YPOTHESIS

2 H

YPOTHESIS

3

(4)

Method

• Attentional scope

• Assortment structure

2 Independent Variables

• Product location choice (different coding)

1 Dependent Variables

2 x 2 Mixed-subjects Factorial Design

94 Participants

(5)

Results

df

Hyp.

df

Error

F

Sig.

Hyp.

proven?

H

₁

1

172

7.589 .007

YES

H

₂

1

172 .008

.929

NO

H

₃

1

172

3.687 .056

YES

01/07/2016 Hannah-Stella Kirchhoff 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Broad Attentional

Scope

Narrow Attentional

Scope

A

ss

o

rt

m

en

t

L

o

ca

ti

o

n

Evidently Equivalent Assortment

Non-equivalent Assortment

Conclusion - Limitations

No manipulation check on attentional scope

Choice of product for evidently equivalent assortment

Conditions and participants not perfectly counterbalanced

High amount won on average

(6)

Recommendation

Retailer’s allocation of

shelf space to different

brands and products

(e.g. Sloot et al., 2006;

Eisend, 2014, Dreze et

al., 1995)

&

arrangement of products

Differences in most

favourable position for

manufacturers

Interaction effect

conflicting goals during

shopping spree?

(7)

References

Bar-Hillel, M. (2015). Position Effects in Choice From Simultaneous Displays A Conundrum Solved. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(4), 419-433. Bellenger, D. N., & Korgaonkar, P. K. (1980). Profiling the recreational shopper. Journal of retailing, 56(3), 77-92.

Dayan, E., & Bar-Hillel, M. (2011). Nudge to nobesity II: Menu positions influence food orders. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(4), 333. Diehl, K., & Poynor, C. (2010). Great expectations?! Assortment size, expectations, and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(2), 312-322. Dreze, X., Hoch, S. J., & Purk, M. E. (1995). Shelf management and space elasticity. Journal of Retailing, 70(4), 301-326.

Eisend, M. (2014). Shelf space elasticity: A meta-analysis. Journal of Retailing, 90(2), 168-181.

Gable, P. A., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2011). Attentional consequences of pregoal and postgoal positive affects. Emotion, 11(6), 1358.

Hadar, L., & Sood, S. (2014). When Knowledge Is Demotivating Subjective Knowledge and Choice Overload. Psychological science, 0956797614539165. Hoch, S. J., Bradlow, E. T., & Wansink, B. (1999). The variety of an assortment. Marketing Science, 18(4), 527-546.

Huffman, C., & Kahn, B. E. (1998). Variety for sale: Mass customization or mass confusion?. Journal of retailing, 74(4), 491-513.

Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing?. Journal of personality and social psychology, 79(6), 995. Kwak, K., Duvvuri, S. D., & Russell, G. J. (2015). An Analysis of Assortment Choice in Grocery Retailing. Journal of Retailing, 91(1), 19-33.

Levy, M., & Weitz, B. (2008). Retailing Management, 7th edition McGraw-Hill. Boston, MA.

Mogilner, C., Rudnick, T., & Iyengar, S. S. (2008). The mere categorization effect: How the presence of categories increases choosers' perceptions of assortment variety and outcome satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), 202-215.

Sloot, L. M., Fok, D., & Verhoef, P. C. (2006). The short-and long-term impact of an assortment reduction on category sales. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(4), 536-548. Watterson, B. (1996). It's a magical world. Andrews McMeel Publishing.